It certainly has been interesting and educational reading the responses to my
initial frustrations about celebrating holidays in museum settings.   It has
also been interesting how many individuals sent me supportive messages
directly, concerned about how the group would react to their comments.  By the
way, this is how it works in museums.  When one expresses a concern about this
issue, they are pushed down with such passion, they usually never speak up
again.  This is certainly not a way to create open, dynamic and responsive
work environments.

A number of people brought of the issue that a Christmas Tree is not a
religious symbol.  Well, if you showed most individuals a picture of a
Christmas Tree and asked to respond to it in one phrase, most would say , "Oh
Christmas."  To me, a symbol's meaning is that which comes to mind when people
encounter that image or object.

I also have a bit of a problem of quasi gov't or gov't organizations spending
money on a "religious" celebration out of the context of a "religious" exhibit
or if religion is the content of the institution.  If the Nixon Library wants
to show how the presidential family spent christmas, that makes sense.

Believe it or not, the most compelling reason for me is one of economics.  Our
stores do most of their business during the holiday season.  However, there
must be a more diverse way that we can decorate our institutions during this
festive period to satisfy all groups.  I'm not talking about putting a small
menorah in the window for me.  It's a religious object that doesn't belong in
a public space -- especially when a series of prayers is not said when each
new candle is lit or bulb screwed in.

I urge those of you who are involved in the planning of these holidays to
think twice about how your decisions affect others.  And don't think that what
you think is the solution will be responsive to those who are impacted by the
decisions.  Maybe folks can bring in a diverse group of community members in a
forum to discuss this issue.  It might bring about some interesting dialog and
responsive changes.  I challenge you to consider these issues, but only if you
are ready to make changes.  If it is only an exercise in listening with no
action, don't waste the time.  As I always say, don't take your temperature if
you aren't willing to take advil (or asprin).

I also urge you to consider many other issues of diversity when developing
educational programs, membership programs, exhibits, signage, and hiring.  As
an industry, we are slowly getting better at responding to issues of race and
the physically challenged.  Although we are certainly not as far as we need to
be.  How many of us have signers to support the deaf community?  How many of
us has a diverse staff to reflect the community?

What about some audiences that don't get thought about enough -- single parent
families, very large families (in terms of membership programs that limit
family size), recent immigrants who live in cities without a large immigrant
populations, how about the blind (do we give them a chance to touch diorama's
when it's slow), what about folks who are seriously afraid of heights (how do
we get them through some of our buildings designed by architects who just love
spectacular and cavernous atria), what about people who have never been to an
art museum in their lives, what about adults who can't read, I could go on and
on.  Let's get in the shoes of our audience or potential and make it work for
as many as we can.

And if you feel that we are watering down the experience for the core
audience, I guess that is your perogative.  Just remember, if people don't
feel welcome, they won't come back and they'll tell their peer group about
their experience.

I hope I didn't offend anyone.  Just letting you know how one individual feels
so it might help you welcome audiences who have walked into your institution
and out very quickly when they become offended by something you never thought
could offend.

Good luck,

Stephen Brand